Limited Government Is

VITAL RECORDS INDICATE OBAMA NOT BORN IN HAWAII HOSPITAL (PART 2)

SHOCK AND ODD –Along with previous evidence proving the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on the internet in April, 2011 was digitally fabricated, we reveal powerful new evidence which shows that data contained on the document contradicts Obama’s birth narrative and vital statistical accounting methods used at the alleged time of his birth. Vast disparities between the natal information appearing in the image and the standard methods used by federal and municipal governments to code, identify and report the contents of U.S. vital records prove that Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth record was assembled to intentionally obscure the truth about his natal biography.

By Penbrook Johannson and Dan Crosby of

THE DAILY PENNEW YORK, NY – An intensive examination of the contents of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the most respected experts in vital records accounting and identity investigation reveals that much of the contrived information about his alleged Hawaiian birth simply renders his Natural-born status impossible.

In cooperation with former members of the Social Security Administration’s Records and Claims Investigation office, along with information provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), this installment of our report reveals evidence, for the first time, which shows the content of Obama’s document image was hastily and recently manufactured by criminal counterfeiters secretly working in collaboration with both the White House and the municipal government of the State of Hawaii.
Most importantly, the actual data found in the document image reveals that Obama’s natal history is in direct, and even absurd, conflict with historical precedents defining citizenry, demographics and birth metrics as well as protocols governing vital statistics accounting while exposing epic deceptions on a scale never before seen in American political history.

Aside from the contextual contradictions revealed by Obama’s alleged 1961 birth records, it can never be dismissed that, according to centuries of legal and doctrinal precedence, the fact that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth forever disqualifies him from ever being eligible to hold the office of president unless the Constitution were to have been legally changed prior to his presidency.

The best way to define a natural-born citizen is not so much by what it is, but what it isn’t. A natural-born citizen is one born of geographic and biological circumstances, and to have remained under those citizenship metrics from birth to election, which make it impossible for any authority or public perception to consider him or her allied with any status other than naturally-born as a citizen of that nation.

Being born in a geographic location which is under the protection of the U.S. Constitution to two citizen parents are two of the three major components of natural-born citizenship according to historical authority defining the term. The third requirement of natural-born citizenship is continuity of that status without renouncement, voluntary or not, by expatriation, extradition or adoption to foreign parents.

These metrics were not made to hurt the feelings of those not qualified. They were intended to protect the sovereignty of the United States of America and its Constitutional rights through ensuring, to the highest possible degree, the allegiances of its executive powers. For, only the executive branch is led by one.

Failure to understand this is tantamount to willful ignorance and inferior understanding of the reason why American remains the greatest santuary of freedom and protection in world history.

INTRODUCTIONThe evolution of methods used to collect, prepare and report vital statistics must be carefully examined in order to understand how Obama exploited Hawaiian culture and its municipality to become America’s first ineligible president.
Vital statistics reporting methods fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health, Center for Disease Control, Census Bureau and multiple branch agencies in public health monitoring. This federal cacophony of bureaucracy works in collaboration with the state health municipalities in each state and U.S. territories to manage the nations vital records and statistics standards.
Vital records are implemented without concern for defining the citizenship status of the subjects on the vital records. Regulations governing the collection and reporting of vital statistics are purposed for improving accuracy, timeliness and availability of vital statistics data to be used for public health services, disease prevention and population.
Most certainly, vital records and statistics were never intended to be used as evidence for determining the eligibility of individuals to hold public office. The information contained in them does not provide an accurate portrayal of the specific natal circumstances, biographical events and geographic indicators required for determining Natural-born citizenry. Vital records simply are not qualified for making such determinations, but in the absence of other vetting resources and effort by authorities, they serve as a starting point for investigation.
Since some have chosen to elicit validation from the absurdity of internet images of alleged 50-year-old birth records, without so much as questioning their authenticity or origins, to determine a previously obscure politician’s eligibility to hold the most powerful and dangerous position in the world, they get what they deserve in their failure to demand a higher vetting standard.
Not only has the American public descended to new depths of endemic irrationality over Obama’s alleged birth records, the complex world of vital records and statistics has been breached to reveal some of the most bizarre protocols and complex logistics of any municipal service.
Tragically, so many remain willing to accept an ambiguous, uncorroborated image of an alleged document posted to the most corruptible and unreliable source of mythology in history, the internet, as the holy grail of some politician’s legitimacy to hold the greatest executive and military power on earth.OBAMA’S STATISTICAL CONTRADICTIONS According to the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Vol.1: Natality (VSUS Report), Hawaii’s 1961 birth statistics were tabulated by the National Vital Statistics office from microfilm copies of the certificates provided by the State of Hawaii’s main Vital Records office in Honolulu.
The records were organized by the main Hawaiian Vital Records office in order of “regional” sequence according to the alphabetical order of the five counties and two metropolitan areas in which the birth record was originated, not where the birth occurred. They were then assembled into “blocks” of 20 records and microfilmed.
Upon delivery to the NCHS, the data was transcribed by personnel and then manually “punched” onto cards prior to their insertion into a card-reader where the data was stored on magnetic tape in a 150+ digit string of code numbers for each record, each digit specifying a distinctive piece of data on the certificate accounting for birth metrics, demographics, age, location, parentage, health statistics, etc.
In successive years, according to the U.S. Vital Statistics System guide, beginning in 1962, the NCHS evolved to electronic data allowing each state to place the records on magnetic tape themselves as the preferred media for delivery of birth data. Computer processing and software media began to be used in the early 1980s.
In 1961, the NCHS stored birth statistics in “blocks” of 20 records on magnetic tape based on a 50-percent sample of even-numbered certificates only. This fact raises doubts about the authenticity of Obama’s alleged certificate given its alleged odd number and yet it contains preliminary codes scribed in the margins of the item entry spaces.

Pencil marks indicate Obama’s certificate was prepared for coding and statistical tabulation. Data found in the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” demonstrates the disparity between the documented evidence about his birth facts and the propaganda supporting his claim to natural-born citizenship as well as America’s first so-called “black” president.
According to the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (VSIM) Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” reveals that he is actually not America’s first “black” president. In fact, by vital statistics reporting standards, he is not even bi-racial. This is significant not to the issue of his race, but to the accuracy of the information on the image in comparison to his widely accepted birth narrative, in general.
Demographic coding of the information as it is stated on the image causes him to be classified as “white”, not “black”, contrary to what media propaganda has tried to convince us. Vital statistics reporting protocols state that a child’s race is classified by the race of the parents with consideration given in the following priority.
1. If the race of both parents is coded the same, the child is that race, as well. 2. If one parent is classified as white (Code 1) and the other is classified as one of codes 0 or 2 through 8, then the child’s race is also classified as one of the classification codes found in 0 or 2 through 8. 3. The child’s race is classified by the father’s race unless the father’s race code is 9, which means “Not stated” or “not classifiable”, then the child’s race is classified by the mother’s race.
Race codes for reporting the mother’s and father’s race on the standard Certificate of Live Birth in 1961 were the same codes and were as follows: Recall, Obama’s father’s race is shown as “African” which does not appear in the “Detail Race of Father” table as a classifiable race according the NCHS. It is coded as a number 9 which is “Not Stated”. Therefore Obama’s race is based on his mother’s, not his father’s, by federal law. We know the vital statistics of Obama’s father’s race was recorded using this code because within the margins of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” there are preliminary coding marks written in pencil as prescribed by the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for 1961 reporting. Obama’s certificate has the number “9” scribed in the margin of the item for his father’s race. According to vital statistics coding protocols in 1961 this code dictates the race of his father is “not stated” and, therefore, according to the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942 (MSVSA) and the VSIM issued by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Obama’s race must be classified by his mother’s race when the father’s race is reported as “not stated” or “not classifiable”. Therefore, since his mother’s race is classified as “1 … White”, according to the reporting code found scribed next to her race on the image, Obama is “white” according to the NCHS.

Table above shows the term “African” coded after 1989, not number 9.

Propaganda supporting Obama’s birth narrative pushes the lie that he is America’s first “black” president which would mean that either parents’ race would have to be coded as the number 2, not 9, with other parent being coded number 1. Otherwise, if both parents are not coded as 1 or 9, then the father dictates the race of the child.
For example, if the father is coded “1” and the mother is coded “2”, then the race of the child is “2” because “2” is the non-white code of one parent. If the mother’s race is code “2” and the father’s race is code “5”, then the race of the child is coded “5” because both parents are non-white but the father’s race dictates the child’s race when both parents are non-white. However, if the father’s race is “9”, then the race of the child is the same as the mother’s.
This example is just one of the inconsistencies between the data found within Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” and his popular, but false, birth narrative conveyed by propagandists and media abettors.THE LEFT MARGINMany have wondered why the left margin of the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” is curling away under a digital “clipping mask”. An obvious explanation used by Obama’s defenders is that it was copied from a book of bound certificates in the main office of the Hawaiian department of Health.

However, this explanation does not explain two very significant facts about the image which, when considering vital statistics reporting methodology, render the certificate image a fraudulent document unqualified to determine the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President.
First, the overlay of what appears to be security paper was used around the visible part of the document image to conceal the lower portion of the document which contains birth metrics, health information and coding guidelines about the specific circumstances of the birth and the child’s biography after birth. For example, the author of this story has an original birth certificate which contains notations in this portion of the document indicating a change in paternity five years after his birth.
More importantly, however, the left margin of the document is not visible because the forgers wanted to conceal the codes scribed in that area. A few of these numbers are visible. However, the ones that are only partially visible or concealed are the ones which reveal the codes reported about the location and circumstances of paternity of the birth.
The numbers 6, 2 and what looks to be the flourish of a 5 appear next to the entry boxes for parental information.
The possibility of the presence of a “5” in this location has foreboding implication with regard to Obama’s birth. According to the Vital Statistics Instruction manual, this code means “Other” with regard to “Type of Location of Birth” – Code Outline shown here:

Essentially the presence of this code in any case is an indication of a Place of Birth other than a Hawaii Hospital and other than by a Hawaiian Medical Doctor.
The presence of the “6” next to the “Place of Birth” item is most troubling. As the second digit of the number 56, the 1961 VSIM uses the number 56 to code the location of births which occur outside of the United States but which are processed “in conjunction with” the county of registration. The states and the District of Columbia are numbered in alphabetical order from 01 to 51 while Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Panama Canal were 52 through 55, respectively. This left the number 56 as the code for classifying “Remainder of the World”. This can be found in the 1961, 1962, 1968, 1977, 1993 and 1999 versions of the VSIM. In 1993, number 55 became the code for New York City because of its large birth volume it was classified as its own major birth rate statistical reporting area.
Essentially, this means the code tape file contains two spaces for the state to record a geographic code for the foreign location of the occurrence of the birth without showing that location on the certificate for a resident mother.
The presence of a “2” is probably the second digit of “12” which is the indication of the VSIM geographic code for Hawaii as the state of the Mother’s “Usual place of Residence”.LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATIONAccording to the NCHS, the birth rate of residents of any statistical reporting area must be based on the total population of the residents of that area in order to be accurate. Therefore, according to the historical methods prescribed by the NCHS from 1945 to 1968 for attributing birth statistics to location, it is a requirement for State Vital Records and Statistics reporting offices to include births of residents in the birth rate no matter where the birth occurs. Logically, this is essential because the population and, therefore, municipal services are affected by those births when the mothers return to their residence with the child.
This circumstance is the impetus for Hawaii’s flexible birth registration process which allows residents of Hawaii, within a year of the birth, to register the birth in Hawaii up to one year after the birth. Theoretically, a pregnant woman who considered Hawaii her usual place of residence up until January 1st, 1960 could register a birth that occurs on December 31st, 1960 as late as December 30th, 1961, and she would not have had to live there for almost two years (See HRS 338-17) and the Certificate would not be marked “delayed” (See MSVSA, Reg. 3.1)
In the alleged year of Obama’s birth, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) published data in its 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report (VSUS Report) which shows that the state of Hawaii had the highest rate of Resident Birth Allocation by its state Department of Health than any state by more than 41 times the national average.Areas directly outside of U.S. cities between 1950 and 1970 show a comparable annual rate of population increase using a ratio of birth rates, mortality and immigration rates with existing population. In the United States in 1961 birth data reveals that births to nonresident mothers in all counties occurred at a rate of 16.5% throughout the nation which matches the expected yearly population increase rate over the previous 10 years.

However, in the state of Hawaii in 1961, this rate was shockingly disparate with only a 0.40% birth rate to nonresident mothers while population outside of Honolulu increased by an annual rate of 96.4% in just ten years. This means that, in 1961, Hawaii registered births to mothers who were allocated residence in Hawaii on the birth certificate at a rate 41 times higher than the rest of the nation even though the population within the largest city, Honolulu, increased at the same rate as the rest of the nation (about 18.6% in 10 years). For example, if a small U.S. county of 1000 people contains 100 pregnant residents and 50 of those women happen to give birth to one child each while traveling to various places outside of the county, including foreign countries, while the other 50 give birth to one child each while in the county, the native (non-immigrant) population of the county will have increased by 100 when the 50 travelers return to the county with their babies. Therefore, according the VSUS Report, Part II, it is not accurate to account births which only took place in the county because that would give a false birth rate of 0.05 if they are accounted by place of occurrence. Reporting the actual birth rate of 0.10 must include residents who give birth outside of their usual place of residence.
However, in Hawaii, this was opposite in effect with regard to natal statistics reporting. Census data shows massive population growth outside of Hawaii’s metropolitan area which is shockingly incongruent with national birth rate statistics. This is because the Hawaiian Department of Health refused to distinguish between mothers of foreign, non-resident and resident births. Aggregately, Hawaii’s population rate also exceeded the national average, overall, based on the ratio of birth rates, immigration, and mortality rates.
Hawaii was the easiest place for a foreign mother to list Hawaii as her place of residence and have her birth allocated to that state than any other state. Likewise, Hawaii was the easiest place for a resident mother to give birth in a foreign country, return to Hawaii and have her birth registered as occurring in Hawaii. The two predominant reasons for this are a chronic misallocation of “usual place of residence” as the location of the birth and Hawaii’s isolated geography.“Usual Place of Residence”The “Usual Place of Residence” allocation for birth statistics was based on criteria described in both the 1960 Census Report published in October of 1961, and Section 5-11 of the 1961 VSUS Report, Volume 1: Natality. Census criteria describes “Usual Place of Residence” as “the place of residence where one lives and sleeps most of the time…”
Additionally, adopting the definition for birth statistics, the VSUS Report, section 5-11 states, “Errors in residence reporting result in a significant overstatement of births to residents near urban places…”
Therefore, cross referencing statistics of Hawaiian population growth between 1950 and 1960 with “birth-by-attendant in hospital” data in the VSUS Report indicated that significant errors in Hawaiian “birth by residence” reporting was the result of widespread overstatement of births to mothers who claimed Hawaii as their place of residence but did not actually give birth in a hospital in the state of Hawaii.
Recall, as of today, Obama has never provided a corresponding copy of his alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” directly from the alleged hospital of his birth. The absence of his birth documentation is supported by these statistical facts. Hawaii’s “birth by residents” data errors were the result of basing census population growth indicators from native birth registrations without natal statistics supported by hospital records and prenatal medical services. Babies were appearing everywhere in Hawaii according to native residence census data, but, unless everyone was having twins, no one could account for these births as occurring in Hawaii according to Natality data and American Hospital Association (AHA) statistics.
The only other state to show such disparate native birth statistics in relationship with normal native birth rate (non-immigration) population growth in the same period was Florida…as a result of mass exodus from Cuba. Like Hawaii, one year old “American” babies of “resident mothers” were showing up in doctors’ offices and state department of health offices in Florida, but no one could account for their hospital birth rates or location of occurrence.This is important in the case of Obama’s ambiguous birth narrative because he was born at the height of Hawaii’s natal accommodation movement. Municipal funding struggled to keep up with demand as areas outside of Honolulu exploded. Accounting foreign births as native births greatly assisted Hawaii’s justification for federal tax funding to build infrastructure, providing municipal services and, most importantly, expanding public health/natal care services.
Therefore, because of decades of “open door” immigration policy in Hawaii prior to statehood, unless special care was taken in asking for residence information on birth certificate applications, mothers were simply identified as being Hawaiian residents outside of the central city when they registered the births within a year of their occurrence. The idea that such misrepresentation could affect political eligibility or citizenship status under the weight of Hawaii’s municipal development challenges simply was not considered by state and local governments.
In 1960, this situation assumed special importance with the completion of Honolulu International Airport renovations and international aviation service expansion. The increased use of air travel made utilization of American hospitals in cities by non-resident aliens easier creating a massive transaction of people via Hawaii and Asia between 1945 and 1965. Likewise, it made departure from, and return to, Hawaii for residents more efficient as well. This trend saw a pronounced increase in the years 1959-1961 when commercial aviation development reached its peak in Hawaii.
Frustrated and overwhelmed, the Hawaiian Vital Records office, under Title 11, Chapter 8 of its Public Health Regulations, following a radical interpretation of NCHS birth statistics reporting protocol, implemented a remedy for this disparate anomaly after the 1960 Census. In what can only be considered one of the most bizarre examples of twisted municipal logic, rather than record foreign births, the Hawaiian government simply decided the local office where the record was submitted was the location of the occurrence of the vital event, no questions asked (or, at least very few).
Essentially, this means that births could occur anywhere else in the world and the parents could apply for a birth certificate knowing the state vital records and immigration authority would not investigate the circumstances of the birth. This was the case with more than 6000 reported cases of immigrants from the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan, China and Siam from 1946 to 1959, as well as the oft noted case of Chinese born Sun Yet Sen, leader of the democratic movement in China, who was born there but possessed an original birth certificate from the state of Hawaii stating he was born in that state.
Shockingly, statistical comparisons of birth data between 1950 and 1960 reveals that Hawaii’s birth registration volume was higher than the calculable volume of births based on the ratio of non-immigration population increase to birth rate. This is because Hawaii registered births as occurring in Hawaii which do not actually occur in Hawaii and then reported them as native birth statistics to the federal government in order to inflate its statistics triggering federal funding for public services.
The foul reality is that any member of Barack Obama’s family could exercise specific legal and administrative procedures clearly outlined in statutory language and acquire an official, original, standard “Certificate of Live Birth” which, by evidentiary provision after the fact, can legally state he was born in Hawaii, without him actually being born there. The only three things needed for this to occur for Obama is that a lie be told, an affiant confirm the lie, and the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health rubber stamp it.
Though legal in Hawaii, such misrepresentation disqualifies presidential candidates because it does not endow Natural-born citizenship as defined by the legal foundations of the U.S. Constitution.Isolation Enemies seeking to confiscate the power and resources of any nation will attempt to infiltrate its citizenry and government structure through the most unmonitored, isolated and easily bypassed points of entry. In 1960, that point of entry in the U.S. was Hawaii.
The Hawaiian islands sit in the middle of the Pacific Ocean at an equal distance from 18 different countries, all having direct flight access to more than 15 airports on eight different islands all of which are within 190 miles of Honolulu. No place in the world in 1961 was more traveled by people from more destinations that the Hawaiian archipelago.
Research also reveals that no state in American history has enacted more customized laws to facilitate an open birth documentation process than Hawaii. The perplexity of the Aloha state’s vital records administrative processes are the result of that states struggle to account for native indigenous Hawaiian heritage, U.S. citizen non-residents and foreign immigrants.
Essentially, Hawaii’s vital records laws are intended to integrate indigenous and migratory populations with American economics and modalities while, at the same time, maintain cultural exclusivity through oscillating statutory revision. Hawaii’s vital records management system has never been exempt from this ever adjusting accommodation.
These enigmatic warrants originate long before Hawaii’s statehood in August, 1959. For more than 110 years, indigenous populations, geographic isolation, unmonitored migration, international tourism, transportation modalities, municipal underdevelopment and multicultural inclusivity make Hawaii the single most unaccountable native birth allocation destination in American history.OBAMA’S VERY “ODD” CERTIFICATEOne misconception about Obama’s natal records is that the alleged date and time of his birth are responsible for the allocation of the certificate number shown on the upper right corner of the images posted in 2008 and April, 2011. The image of Obama’s 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” shows it was allegedly stamped by the main office of the Hawaiian Health Department with the number 151-61-10641.
There are three successive sets of circumstances which impact the assignment of a record number found on vital records, the least of which is the date and time of the occurrence of the birth.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics and the Model State Vital Statistics Act, Section 1, in order for birth records to be official they must:1. Establish a date, time and location of the birth based on medical or administrative authority (administrative declaration must be used if occurrence was in the absence of medical verification); 2. They must be submitted to a local (county) registrar jurisdiction in an appropriate location as defined by state public health regulations prior to legal deadlines governing birth registrations and; 3. Upon receipt by the main office of the state Health Department’s Vital Records Registrar, they must be stamped with an official record number and affixed with a state registrar seal.In the case of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” the progression of these circumstances combined with Hawaii’s extremely liberal public health regulations reveal shocking misrepresentations.Date, Time and Location of Birth According to the MSVSA (Rev. 1959), the network of local (county) registrar offices in the seven jurisdictions of the state of Hawaii were not under the official authority of the main office of the State Health Department’s Registrar (until 1977) as much as they worked collaboratively within best practices to implement an effective vital records system among a geographically challenged and culturally complex population.
Births were recorded under two circumstances. Upon the attendant’s filing of a birth certificate within seven days of the occurrence of birth or the filing of a certificate upon examination of the child for the first time by a Hawaiian medical professional with competent jurisdiction to determine if the birth had occurred within one year of the examination. Both circumstances allow for the filing of the same standard “Certificate of Live Birth” based on the certification of a medical authority without special indications as to the date of registration or actual location of the birth.
Therefore, many assume Obama’s record number would have been stamped to the document in August of 1961 because that is the date of birth shown on the document. However, according to Hawaii Public Health Regulations Title 11, in coordination with the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942 (Rev. 1959), this is not true.
For the past several years, many have wondered why Obama’s alleged record number is higher than those of twin sisters, Gretchen and Susan Nordyke, since the widely accepted account of his birth is that it occurred in the same hospital 19 hours before the twins. The Nordykes’ certificates were assigned the lower numbers of 151-61-10637 and 151-61-10638.
After months of ambiguity by Obama, conflicting hearsay and wrangling by world-wide media sources over the actual place of birth, leading up to the 2008 election, it was finally decided by Wikipedia (Wiki article: “Barack Obama”, August 2008) that Obama’s birth must have occurred in the Hawaiian hospital at 7:24 p.m., August 4th based on uncorroborated documentation from unanimous, unaccountable sources. Interestingly, ensuing discussion was no longer permitted about the subject on the site’s “talk” page. Therefore, simply taken, if record numbers were thought to be assigned chronologically in order with the date and time of occurrence of the three births, sequence dictates that Obama’s number should be much lower.
Theoretically, based on data provided by the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Vol. 1: Natality, which indicates an average of approximately 48 birth registrations per day (one every 30 minutes) throughout Hawaii, this would mean that there were approximately 38 other births registered between Obama’s and the twins, based just on date and time of birth, alone.
However, an accounting of newspaper announcements for all births appearing on August 4th and 5th reveal there were as many as 46 between 7:24 p.m., August 4th and 2:00 p.m., August 5th. By these statistical disparities, one might expect Obama’s actual birth registration number to be around 10591 (subtract 46 from 10637) based on the alleged date and time of his birth.
However, record numbers were not assigned by date and time of birth in Hawaii in 1961 as indicated by Hawaii Administrative Rule 117 of the Hawaii Public Health Regulations.Date and Time of Submission Upon an extensive examination of 1961 Hawaiian birth announcements in comparison with vital records archives, it was discovered that announcements were published based on the order of submission to each local office within each region of Hawaii, not the date of the occurrence of the birth (see Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Section C, p. 55 and Model State Vital Statistics Act Section 6(c)). However, birth record numbers were not assigned by this local submission sequence, either.
Hawaiian Public Health Regulations for Vital Records Processing (HAR 117, Section 2) dictated, then and now, that when a vital event occurred with an attendant, the vital record must be submitted within seven days to the local vital records receiving office (this became five days in 1977) of their occurrence and duplicates maintained within the local jurisdiction of their origination (See Section 2 and Section 8 of HAR Title 11.117.8).
In Hawaii, there are several variables which affected the definition of “origination” of a vital record in 1961. Origination was not always defined as the location of the vital event but rather wherever the birthed subject was first examined by a medical professional of authority as defined by the Health Department.
The most significant development, and one that opens Obama’s eligibility to intense scrutiny, is that the NCHS made the distinction, for 1961 statistics, (after Census data and the addition of an additional entry box for the revision to the standard certificate in 1956) between a mother’s location of usual residence and the actual location of the occurrence of the vital event, regardless of where she was when the event occurred.
This distinction was made because, as transportation modalities improved and hospitals developed better natal care facilities, previous birth records did not account for a sudden accelerated increase in birth rates shown in the same counties as the hospitals. These modern developments skewed data making it appear as though virtually all the births in a state were by mothers who lived in the same county as the location of the hospital. They didn’t, they just traveled there from another county to give birth.
This is particularly significant in Hawaii in 1961 since Hawaiian counties and their populations are separated by ocean. The statistical distinction was eventually morphed and contorted as part of the justification for passing latter sections of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 governing the issuance of original Hawaiian birth certificates to foreign-born children as late as up to one year after the birth (See also Model State Vital Statistics Act, Regulation 3.1), further confirming reasons that birth records from Hawaii should never be relied upon for determining the eligibility of a President without extensive investigation of the circumstances of their origins.
We now know that Hawaii’s derelict laws pose a serious threat to national security with regard to its permissiveness of false natal citizenship status for aspiring presidential candidates. Additionally, a mapping of birth announcement addresses with respect to their order of newspaper publication reveals their sequence was established by the order of their submission from the State of Hawaii Department of Health main office to the newspaper, which, prior to this, was established by the order of their submission from the regional offices to the main office. This multistep process shows that record numbers were not assigned in chronological order of registration, nor were they assigned based on the date and time of the birth. They were assigned first, by region code, which is based on an alphabetical order of counties (See VSIM, Sec. C, p. 55), of registration and, secondly, with time needed to process, by date of receipt and verification by the State Registrar in the main Health Department office in Honolulu. A number was not assigned until the information was attested and verified by a medical authority at some point after the birth, regardless if the birth was attended by the signing physician (see MSVSA, Section 7 and Reg. 3.1).
Recall, as stated in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Section C, “Coding and Punching” and the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Table 3-1, the “regional” ordering and numbering of vital records was necessary to prevent inaccurate accounting of rural, foreign, non-hospital and unattended births, which did not occur with the same frequency as more numerous urban, hospital and physician-attended births. The increase in statistical probability for inaccurate accounting was due to the federally mandated 50-percent reporting method using even-numbered certificates only.
In Part 1 of our report, we showed that the main office of Hawaii’s Health Department processed birth registrations from seven such regions in 1961. They were:
Hawaii County which was divided into: 1. The incorporated area of Hilo and, 2. The remainder of the island of Hawaii (which is the remainder of the county); Honolulu County which was divided into: 3. The incorporated area (standard metropolitan statistical area) of Honolulu and; 4. The remainder of the Island of Oahu and; The three remaining counties including: 5. Kalawao County on the island of Molaki; 6. Kauai County which includes the Island of Nihau and; 7. Maui County which includes the islands of Maui, Lanai and Molokai (except for the peninsula settlement region of Kalawao County).
Therefore, along with eliminating time and place of birth, record numbers were also not assigned based on date of submission to local offices.September Surprise: Receipt of Obama’s Records by the State Office
The record number is the very last piece of data to officially be placed on a birth certificate. Only after all signatures, information, birth data, stamps have been finalized is the record indexed by the State Registrar’s office.
There were 1472 births registered in Hawaii in August, 1961 which averages to about 48 per day. However, because births outside of Honolulu County were collected by the main registrar’s office on a less frequent basis, Honolulu County births were not only assigned a higher proportion of registration numbers in the reporting period, they were assigned more numbers earlier in the reporting year. About 3% more, or, statistically, about 528 record numbers, over the 1961 reporting year.
This disparity should raise suspicions on its merit as to the number of birth registrations compared to the expectable birth rates among any population.
If birth certificate numbers were assigned based on submission order, not birth occurrence, one would expect Obama’s birth certificate number to be even more disparate from the Nordykes because his birth was allegedly submitted three days before the Nordykes’ on Tuesday, August 8th. The Nordykes’ records were not submitted to the local office in Honolulu until August 11th and were not stamped until at least the 14th, the first Monday after submission.
Chronologically speaking, based on birth rates in August of 1961, if numbers were assigned based on submission dates, this means that Obama’s certificate number should be as low as 10492.
Deadlines for transmittal of completed birth submissions from local offices to the main Department of Health Office varied depending on the location of the local office. The general rule for transmitting vital records in Hawaii in 1961 is outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Rule 117, Chapter 8, Section 8 of the Hawaii Public Health Regulations for Vital Statistics Registration and Records. The rule states: “Local registrars shall transmit certificates filed with them weekly to the State Health Department, except that on the outlying areas all certificates on hand the 4th of the month following the month of occurrence shall be mailed immediately by airmail.” The rule does not define “outlying”, nor does it prescribe measures for transmittal when airmail service was not available (which happened four times in 1960-61 due to tropical storms, see History of Hawaiian Aviation, State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation 1925-Present). Also, the 4th of each month occurred on a weekend four times in 1961 in February, March, July and November which means transmittal was delayed at least two more days, or about 400 births, statistically speaking.
This means that a birth registration which was submitted in Lihue, Kauai on December 1st, 1960 could be stored for 35 days before being sent to Honolulu via airmail on January 4th, 1961 where it would be received the next available business day, reviewed and finally be stamped with a number and state seal sometime before July 31st, the mandated federal deadline for reporting of birth statistics to the National Vital Statistics Office. This monthly “stacking” of outlying birth registrations created fluctuations in record number sequencing.
Further clarification of the rule through HAR 91 indicates that local clerks’ offices and courts in Oahu are required to transmit vital records to the main Health Department office in Honolulu by hand delivery each week while offices not on the island of Oahu were requested by the main office to transmit uncertified, unstamped vital records, via airmail, but when information on the record was incomplete or unverified, a voucher was sent to the local office asking for clarification which would delay the record another week or two. Meanwhile, the record is held without a record number for all this time while other birth records are being stamped and filed.
Hawaii’s interisland airmail service from outlying islands to Honolulu was conducted from the following airports:
• Lihue Airport, Kauai County (91 miles to Honolulu) • Kahului Airport, Island of Maui, Maui County (89 miles to Honolulu) • Lanai Airport, Island of Lanai, Maui County (63 miles to Honolulu) • Kalaupapa Airport, Island of Molokai, Kalawao County (54 miles to Honolulu) • Hilo International Airport, Hawaii County (incorporated) (189 miles to Honolulu) • Keahole International Airport or Waimea-Kohala Airport, Hawaii County (unincorporated) (151 miles to Honolulu).
In Hawaii, in 1961, birth registrations occurring outside of Honolulu County (off the Island of Oahu) were collected on a less frequent basis than births in Honolulu County, but the totals were divided into monthly statistics based on registration dates, for federal report data. Since the main health department office was in the city of Honolulu, on the island of Oahu, and more than 85% of the births in Hawaii occurred on Oahu, which is Honolulu County, it was beneficial for the registrar to account these births on a more frequent basis due to their higher volume. Birth registrations occurring inside of Honolulu County were accounted in the State of Hawaii’s main Department of Health Office each week. This is confirmed by the accounting of birth announcements in the newspapers with registrant addresses located in Honolulu County compared to those announcements for births whose registrant addresses are outside of Honolulu County.
This is a significant discovery given the disparate record number appearing on Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth”. The fact that his birth registration number is out of sequence with other births is an indication of anomalous circumstances involved in its assignment.
Additional to Hawaii’s geographic challenges, the state Health Department’s contract agreement with the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) stated that birth statistics were to be reported before July 31st of the following year in order to be included in publication for the previous year’s statistics report.
The 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. report shows there were 826 male child births in Hawaii in the month of August, 1961. A cross reference of addresses found in birth announcements published in the Hawaiian newspapers in August of 1961 with archives of residential listings shows that, out of all 826 births, only Barack Obama’s birth was registered to an address where the stated father did not live. According to reporting protocols this fact forces the Department of Health to allocate the usual residence of the mother as the location of the birth, no matter where the birth actually occurs. This was done to protect the custody rights of the mother and welfare of the child in cases when custody was challenged by a father residing in a foreign country. The child was declared a U.S. citizen by default of the mother’s usual place of residence and thereby protected under the U.S. Constitution.
This registration number is also out of sequence with other registered births in the same region Obama is alleged to have been born. This indicates that Obama’s registration number was assigned based on the occurrence of the birth registration in another location, and it was assigned up to a year after the actual occurrence of the birth using a number made available after the official reporting period, perhaps by a previous fetal death which authorities simply chose to classify as a non-Live birth event after the fact.
The registration number has no association with chronological ordering of birth occurrences. In 1961, the first three digits of a birth registration number represents the NCHS code for each Standard Metropolitan Statistics Reporting Area (151 for Honolulu), the following two digits were the year of the registration and, final five were the yearly accounting of birth registrations based the next available number for that region and registration period. This five digit number was expanded to six digits in later reporting periods to account for increase in yearly birth volumes.
Since Hawaii allowed birth registrations up to one year after the occurrence of the birth, it was impossible to keep sequential record numbers based on the time of each live birth event. For example, a birth which occurs in August of 1960 can be registered with Hawaii’s Health Department in August of 1961, but this birth would be given a 1961 registration number, not a 1960 number if the birth date was not established. 1960 registration numbers would be reported by July 31st of 1961.WHAT THE EXPERTS SAYUpon analysis of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” image by former Social Security Administration record investigators consulted for this report, artifacts appearing on the document indicate this document is not a reliable source of identity verification. They provided this assessment for our report:“Mr.Johannson,
Thank you for inquiry regarding the contents of the document image you submitted on February 8th, 2012. We are familiar with the controversy surrounding this particular document and have included our best possible evaluation without access to the corroborating information.
ITEM 1: The image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to the internet in April, 2011, contains handwritten (penciled) numeric and alphanumeric characters which confirm that preliminary coding marks were applied to the document.
On authentic certificates filed by the Health Department, these penciled notations were used on the original, paper version of the record kept by the State-level office of the Department of Health after a photo static copy was provided for medical record archives to the facility shown on the certificate. Moreover, they were applied to even-numbered certificates in 1961, which were those from which statistics were reported to the National Center for Health Statistics. Typically, they are not found on an original certificate which was prepared by an attending medical authority present at the live birth event because the medical personnel do not report natal statistics, the state registrar’s office does.
Therefore, an official copy of the hospital version of this same document in coordination with the code file tape created by the National Vital Statistics office will confirm whether the birth information is accurate between the four agencies who processed it, including the local registrar office, the state registrar, the hospital and the U.S. Vital Statistics office in the appropriate reporting region. All should have copies of this record.
If Obama’s birth occurred in 1961, it would be subject to the NCHS reporting methods and coding for that year. Therefore, his birth statistics would have been tabulated in the State office but not necessarily recorded and published by the NCHS statistics report. However, if the tape file record of his birth were discovered in the NCHS tape file archive, this would be contradictory to what we have been told about his birth.
Therefore, according the SSA panel, it is unlikely the certificate would not have been coded with preliminary notations in 1961, since vital statistics were coded from microfilmed images and translated to punch cards which contained approximately 150+ digit spaces for each birth registration. These cards were tediously completed, in blocks of 20 birth records, with a majority of the records being required, by contract with the NCHS, to be completed by July 31st of the following year.
Beginning in 1960, punch cards were hand-fed into a scan machine and the resulting data was then stored on a magnetic tape reel by the NCHS. According to the official U.S. Vital Statistics System Development handbook, this procedure required several hours for each record and was in effect under Hawaii’s contract with the NCHS until 1971.
ITEM 2: It is important to remember that births are just one of four types of more than 40,000 vital records which required processing, copying and filing in Hawaii. State vital records registration officials simply could not afford to spend time applying preliminary handwritten codes to vital records which were not going to be included in the annual reporting block.
Adding to the challenge, unlike today’s electronic system, the initial coding process was manually performed in 1961. With more than 40,000 records in need of processing and microfilming, why would a municipality waste resources to do unnecessary accounting? The resources were simply not available to do this for all the births, deaths, marriages and divorces in the time frame required, so the even-numbered reporting method was introduced. Besides, the NCHS contract with the states paid only a few cents per record to the (state) Health Department. If these penciled numbers appear on a vital record, the content of that record was reported as part of the even-numbered certificates to the NCHS as required.
Based on this, it is conclusive that Obama’s certificate number is either fraudulently assigned by forgers, or it was changed to an odd number after the original contents of the document were entered in order to prevent inquiries into Obama’s record file tape. Under either circumstance, information about Obama’s birth is being intentionally obscured in order to hide his actual natal history and the negative impact it would have on his eligibility to be president.
It is our recommendation that the identity of this individual, including his natal history, as well as all major forms of primary identification including social security number, education records, licenses and travel records be formally and thoroughly investigated.
Best Regards,
Records and Claims Investigations office Social Security Administration
Based merely on the fact that Obama’s stated father, as shown in the image of this alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth was not an American citizen, Obama is not eligible to president of the United States. However, the NCHS coding and vital statistics reporting methods have left more than ample artifacts to formally investigate the truth about this most ambiguous shell of a man.